Powers of new C-51 law ‘all sweeping, easily abused’ – Canadian activist

Activists who criticize the government could be targeted under Canada’s new “anti-terror” law, which seriously jeopardizes the rights and freedoms of Canadians while doing little to improve public safety James Gordon, activist and song writer, told RT.

The stringent bill, dubbed C-51, was passed into law in the
Canadian Senate by a vote of 44-28 on June 9, despite strong
opposition of many Liberal Party members and nationwide public
protests.

Critics say the law is too heavy-handed and too vague. It implies
that advocating terrorism, even when there is no intent to commit
a crime or commit a violent offense, is a crime. It also
potentially bans activism and protest: for example, a
non-sanctioned demonstration in favor of Quebec separatism or
against an oil pipeline could be deemed as a threat to national
security.

Police are now able to detain anyone they suspect of being a
terrorist and there is no need to prove that someone was going to
commit a crime. Federal departments are able to share an
individual’s personal information and spy agencies can breach
people’s privacy and freedom of expression.

RT:James, the law was introduced over
safety concerns, that is the argument. Memories, of course, still
fresh of last year’s parliament shooting, surely it was expected
that measures would follow?

James Gordon: Yes we all knew there would be
something like that but no-one guessed it would be as extreme as
what we’re seeing with this bill.

RT:What makes this so non-democratic as you
see it?

JG: Well, you really outlined it very well I
think in your description of it. If it is entirely up to the CSIS
(Canadian Security Intelligence Service) or a spy agency to
determine who is a terrorist and who is not. Those powers would
be all sweeping and could be easily abused. It goes so far,
according to some people, that I could be, as an activist myself,
as an artist who is used to using a form of expression sometimes
to point out what’s going on with our democracy. Maybe just you
and I having this conversation right now could put me at risk.

RT:Canadians know very well how widespread
spying turned out to be for the United States, why would they
follow the same pattern knowing the fall out that we would
see?

JG: That’s a very good question and I think
because it’s an election year, I think there is an agenda that
does not actually fit in with the reality that is happening with
terrorism in Canada. We already have checks and balances and
measures in place to deal with such incidents, but these overly
non-democratic powers are for a different agenda many people
think, that it suppresses just dissent with our own regime, not
necessarily about terrorism at all.

RT:How has the Canadian public reacted to
this? I mean this isn’t exactly being covered wall to wall in the
mainstream media, most people might even not know that this law
was passed, the reason we’re covering it is because our audience
members wrote to us asking us to cover this story, so how have
people reacted in Canada?

JG: Well, that’s a very good point too, because
the mainstream media is often more sympathetic to the ruling
Harper government. It sort of stayed under the radar for quite a
while. But I think thanks to social media, thanks to good work
activists are doing to raise awareness about it; I think the
statistics have changed very quickly. For instance, when the
Liberal Party decided to endorse the bill, they did after polling
that suggested that’s what Canadian were looking for, and
according to my information, it’s almost turned right around now.
I think only 40 percent of those polled would approve of this
bill, so it’s really put a different slant on our upcoming
election, and I think it will be a major factor in it.

RT:What about the masses, though? Of course
there are those who watch the mainstream, social media can take
us pretty far, we saw reaction to the NSA and their surveillance
programs, but they tend to die down eventually. How much can the
people of Canada stop this law from taking action?

JG: Well, we tried. It is in-effect now, this
law, so our only recourse is to vote for parties that are vowing
to repeal the law if they get into power at the election. That is
our only hope, and I think because there is going to be a large
election issues. Going back to your question about the masses,
the platform that an election allows the different parties means
that everyone is going to be crisscrossing the country talking
about it, except the Conservative Party that doesn’t seem to want
to talk about anything.